unsubscribeCancel a subscription by id. Ownership is enforced — you can only cancel your own subscriptions. The row is deactivated (not deleted) so its historical events stay available via recent_alerts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Subscription id (uuid) returned by subscribe. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only state readOnly=false, destructive=false, and idempotent=true. The description goes further, explaining that rows are deactivated rather than deleted, ownership is enforced, and historical events remain available. This provides valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the action. Each sentence adds critical information: the operation, the constraint (ownership), and the side effect (deactivation + historical availability). No filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter mutation tool with clear annotations and no output schema, this description covers the purpose, constraint, and side effects. It's complete for an agent to decide and invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already describes the id parameter as the subscription UUID returned by subscribe, giving 100% coverage. The description adds only 'by id,' which doesn't enrich beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Cancel' with a clear resource 'subscription by id', immediately distinguishing it from sibling tools like subscribe and list_subscriptions. It also adds the deactivation detail, reinforcing what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides clear context: ownership is enforced and cancellation only applies to own subscriptions. It also signals that historical events remain accessible via recent_alerts, indirectly guiding when not to use this tool (if preserving history is needed, use recent_alerts). However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for cancellation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The server is named 'chess', yet none of the 34 tools relate to chess. An agent looking for chess functionality would find all tools irrelevant. While individual tool descriptions are clear, the server's name creates a fundamental disambiguation problem: the tool set does not match the server's apparent purpose.
Tool names within the set follow a consistent snake_case pattern with descriptive verbs (e.g., ask_pipeworx, deep_research, resolve_entity). There are no mixed conventions. However, the server name 'chess' is completely inconsistent with the tool names, which all suggest data research rather than chess.
For a server named 'chess', 34 tools is wildly excessive. Even for a data research server, the count is high, but the server's name implies a narrow chess domain, making the count inappropriate. The tools cover broad topics like SEC filings, Polymarket, and weather, none of which belong in a chess server.
The server claims to be about chess, but there are zero chess-related tools. The tool set is completely incomplete for its stated purpose. As a data research server, completeness might be high, but that is irrelevant given the server name.